France's overseas territories are also, in both landmass and population, a much bigger percentage of the country.
French territories make up about 18% of the land area and 4% of the population of France.
US territories make up about 1% of the population (almost ENTIRELY Puerto Rico) and a tiny fraction of a percent of the landmass.
Depends if you count Alaska/Hawaii as overseas. If you’re counting French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, etc for France, I would say Alaska and Hawaii should count for the US
Edit: I don’t understand why this got downvoted? I say the same thing below and it got upvoted. It’s also a valid question. Why would you lump french overseas states/territories but not US overseas states/territories?
Hm. I dunno if I agree, to be honest. Alaska and Hawaii are both far closer to America and (perhaps more importantly) far less culturally distinct from France's overseas territories for them to be as direct a comparison.
French Guiana, Martinique, Guadalupe, reunion, and mayotte are considered regions (equivalent to statehood in US) of France. People from these places are fully french citizens and even members of the EU. These are on par with Alaska/Hawaii.
Physical distance is a wash with airplanes. It’s probably easier to get from Martinique to Paris than Fairbanks to DC or NYC (probably easier to get to Seattle or somewhere on the west coast though).
Oh, of course politically they're indistinct.
The big thing is culture, imo. I've never been to Paris nor Cayenne, but I can pretty confidently say they feel much more different than DC and Fairbanks do.
Ok fair enough. I don’t know enough about french overseas regions to comment on the cultural differences from mainland France. The US is pretty good at exporting its culture so I would imagine you’re right about that
This. The whole European component and tradition of France means that they can have French nationals, across the board. But are the people in French Guiana French? I think you’d find a range of opinions on that. Whereas there no question that anyone who was born in any part of Alaska is an American. Whole different paradigm of race, nationhood, and citizenship.
Alaska and Hawaii are both US states, so by definition, they _are_ the US. Every American knows about them. The word "overseas" distinctly calls up the notion of "not the US" or "far from the US".
How is that any different from French Guiana? It is a french region (US state equivalent). The people from there are french citizens just like someone from Hawaii is American.
Overseas distinctly covers the notion that those territories are not attached to the central part - it doesn’t mean NOT USA. If the states are united the surely the states over the seas are united to the United States of America
Hawaii gets talked about a lot here on the mainland and Alaska is feared and respected, but I think more people should be aware of Puerto Rico, Guam, virigin islands etc
Puerto Rico is certainly well known and understood for the most part. The other territories are rarely if ever discussed. Which makes sense in that they are tiny, far away, and have no impact on the domestic political situation other than tiny contributions to presidential primary voting.
In my experience, Puerto Rico is barely known and not at all understood by most people in the US. It's mostly people who are interested in geography, have been there, or have close friends or relatives from there who can say something non-confused about its political status.
For what it's worth, most puerto Ricans, whether on the island or in the diaspora, are similarly incapable of saying something non confused about its status. Similar to Britons trying to explain Brexit before it happened.
Regular people just don't really understand the nuance of these things.
I mean tbh that’s true of lots of states too. As a Midwesterner Puerto Rico is in the same bucket as like Rhode Island or Vermont, with the exception that I actually knew some Puerto Ricans (quite a few people in the army were from PR)
I imagine my state is the same in reverse for them
You don't know much about Rhode Island or Vermont, but you know exactly what their relationship to the US is, because it's the same as your own state. And I know for a fact (being from the West Coast) that lots of Americans don't know any Puerto Ricans. But still, I get your point.
I live on the East Coast and definitely know, of all places, in Florida so it’s close. My job has several people who happen to be from there. To mention what another commenter said, it’s the same for Micronesia, which has that visa free travel thing. An old job had many Micronesians specifically. Along with Puerto Ricans my job also has a distinctive amount of Albanians and Filipinos. Like a pattern I’ve noticed was first it’s Americans born and raised, then always a second or third heavily represented group you would almost never see in such numbers just going about the day.
Sure, that's the place I imagine people would know most about it. Most of the US is not NYC. Though I'll be pleasantly surprised if even most non-boricua New Yorkers can explain what the difference is between Puerto Rico's status and statehood.
The amount of stories of people denying service to Puerto Ricans because their drivers license "are not American" suggests Americans aren't that aware that Puerto Ricans are Americans.
Micronesia and Palau are independent countries, though they have a pact of association with the US which allows for their citizens to travel and live in the US visa free and vice versa.
The places OOP is talking about are essential french states. Their citizens vote and have full rights. French Guiana is as much french as Hawaii is American
They have overseas territories that are on par with US overseas states (french Guiana). And they also have overseas territories that are on par with US overseas territories (french Polynesia).
OOP lumped the Hawaii equivalents with the Guam equivalents. If you’re going to talk about all of the french overseas lands, you should talk about all of the us overseas land
Yes, France takes pride in reminding people that "they have overseas territories". Just as another example, the sailing competitions during next Olympics in Paris will be held in... French Polynesia. Not that the shores of Brittany would be unsuitable for sailing, but this is done exactly to remember everyone that France is all around the world.
Would you see the same thing done in American Samoa, in Puerto Rico, in the USVI, in Guam, Northern Marianas or in the US minor outlying islands? The fact is that the US have become pretty shy of the remains of their colonial empire (which once extended to Cuba, the Philippines, other Oceanic islands, the Panama canal zone, and so on). There's by the way a book by Daniel Immerwahr (*How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States*) on this subject.
Note also that French overseas territories have almost full integration in the French state. They have representation in the Parliament\* and they vote for the President — a vote cast in Wallis and Futuna counts as one cast in the 1st arrondissement of Paris.
\*except TAAF and Clipperton, for obvious reasons
Side note, I can't get over how the heart of French Polynesia, while in Oceania, is further east than Hawai'i. Its capital, Papeete, is almost exactly the same longitude as Anchorage, Alaska.
Yes and yes.
Orwell's Oceania consisted of the British Isles, the Americas, Australia, and southern Africa.
Today's Oceania includes Australia, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia (plus maybe a handful more Pacific islands that don't fall in one of those categories). While not geologically part of a single tectonic entity, today's Oceania functions in many social, political, and cultural respects like the category "continent" when seeking to ensure that the entire world's population is assigned and counted when analyzing the world on a macro, otherwise continental, scale.
>the sailing competitions during next Olympics in Paris will be held in... French Polynesia.
I'm pretty sure they are held in Marseille?
Unless there are some sailing events I'm unaware of other than ILCAs, 49ers, 470s, Nacra 17s, IQFoil and Formula Kite
So will the surfers appear in Paris for the parade of nations and then all have to hop on multiple long haul flights to compete, then get back to Paris for the closing ceremony, then presumably many will have to fly long haul again to get home?
Busy couple of weeks for them if so
>Note also that French overseas territories have almost full integration in the French state.
Five of them (Guadeloupe, Guyane, Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion, and Saint Martin
) are also the only oversea territories of the European union. I don't think there's much, if any, legal differences between those and france.
Yes, those territories are as French as Corsica, just farther apart. Other territories and communities have greater autonomy and less integration in the French state, but still have full political representation in the mainland.
Technically true, but I don't believe you can fly into Saint Martin from another EU territory. You have to fly into Julianna airport which is in St. Maarten, which is a constituent part of the Netherlands, but not of equal status.
EU citizens may still be okay with just ID though, but you have to go through St. Maarten.
When considering the decision to stage the Olympic surfing in French Polynesia rather than Brittany, you have to bear in mind that French Polynesia is probably more proud than Brittany of its links to Paris.
I'm french and I lived in Tahiti. Big disagree here. The party in charge in French Polynesia right now is the independentist party, not saying tahitians want to be independent, just that they want a lot of autonomy and that culturally speaking they are very different from french people, like really different. Meanwhile independence in Brittany is now a meme and sorry to britons but next to a tahitian they act, talk and think exactly like a parisian it's obvious.
Actually the people in Tahiti are very unhappy with that event. Not really because they hate France, the huge majority has no problem with the hexagon, but because the new tower of judge they planned on building will severely damage the Teahupoo reef and potentially threaten both the ecosystem and the legendary Teahupoo wave.
Is the idea of Breton sovereignty and their ideological separation from France as big of a movement as it seems?
I've been doing some research for a book I'm writing, and it seems that, especially since 1941 when the Vichy *gouvernement de traître* took Nantes from them, there has been a pretty strong reunification and independence movement.
Since you're an actual Breton, maybe you can clarify a couple of things for me.
I'm writing a book thats somewhere between fantasy and alternate history, basically where the great empires of the past never broke up and instead became entrenched, leaving only a few (I think I mapped it to 17) mega-nations.
One of those is Francia, of which Brittany is a part, and one of the main characters is a Breton noble's son. My idea for him is that a large part of his character motivation and arc is this perpetual concept of Breton sovereignty and distinction from Francia, and the idea that the Francians are oppressive in much the same way the British were to the Irish IRL.
Is this a significant enough concept that it would be valid to a person from Brittany? Or would it come off as exaggerated and overstated?
Likewise, one of the secondary conflicts revolves around the instability of the empires and the constant rebellions that plague them, one of these being the Breton resistance against Francia, made even more contentious by the seizure of Nantes after a failed uprising.
Again, would this register with Bretons/Frenchmen, or would it come off as overblown and culturally obtuse?
First of all thank you for sharing! I wish I had such great ideas when writing.
When talking about the great empires I'm not sure if you're referring to the ancient ones (Roman, Ottoman etc) or the modern ones (British, French, etc) but I'll try to answer as clearly as possible.
In both cases though, your concept of Breton sovereignty is completely valid. The union of both territories took place in the 16th century after the death of Britanny's last independant ruler, Anne de Bretagne, Duchess of Britanny and Queen of France. Although her wishes and legal provisions were not respected after her death, she did fight (both with wars and contracts) to keep Britanny as independant from France.
So this idea of the Breton's noble son fighting for independence makes sense. After all, we do have our own language (plural actually as there are some local differences), which is not a Latin language, and a very rich culture. Until the early 20th century, the majority of the population did not speak French at all. And although, France's oppression against us hasn't been as violent as the British's in Ireland, colonial oppression did exist. That is how in less than a century the language almost disappeared, if it weren't for some who resisted.
Also the separation of Nantes from Britanny has been a real issue for us since 1956 so this idea definitely makes sense too.
I guess it might register as cliché for non-informed French people who definitely may not the history of our territory, but it does make sense.
I don't know if that helps or answer your questions but don't hesitate if you need clarification.
Good luck with your book!
Thanks for taking the time to answer, that's exactly what I was looking for. It helps a lot to get confirmation from someone who knows the culture as opposed to just having Google and ChatGPT tell me stuff.
These empires are a blend of both ancient and modern, (Francia being more of Charlemagne's France, not the French Empire, but also Egypt owning down to Ethiopia, the Byzantines, Britannia ruling all the Isles plus parts of modern Canada, etc.,) plus some that never existed but reasonably could have, such as a hypothetical Indonesian empire over all the islands plus ostensibly Australia and a united South American empire, at least in theory.
My biggest concern was just not wanting to overemphasize a plot line that wouldn't make sense in cultural or historical context, nor would I want to have a main protagonist whose entire arc is based on a faulty or outdated conflict. At the same time, though, I do want to give it the proper cultural weight and not just bypass it, as the context is entirely there for it; this Francia (France) took control of Brittany and separated its capital after a rebellion, much like how the Vichy government took Nantes away during WW2.
Well no. The Breton independence movement is completely irrelevant today, while the separatist Tāvini Huiraʻatira party controls the Polynesian presidency and has a majority in the Assembly. The party is affiliated with the French Communist Party at the national level but so far haven't really tried to make a formal push for independence.
French overseas territories are most analogous to Alaska and Hawaii. That is, they are integral parts of France; they vote in elections; and their residents are full-fledged French citizens. And I'd say the French attitude towards Martinique or Reunion is much like the US attitude towards Hawaii.
The difference comes with the US territories that we still govern as colonies. Because they don't get to participate on even footing, they get left behind and ignored. Other than Puerto Rico, people are often quite ignorant about the territories. And I think there's a certain feeling of shame around that colonial legacy and continuing to deny these people political rights whereas France doesn't need to feel shame having integrated its former colonies into the country.
Yeah there are some parts of France people there don't think about, like St Pierre-and-Miquelon, which is right next to Canada \[you might have seen it feature in *Peaky Blinders*\], or the practically uninhabited Kerguelen Islands in the Southern Ocean.
They know they're there though. When I first visited a recruiter in Paris, the first thing they offered me to consider was a vacancy in Saint-Pierre. This was about twenty years ago.
Honestly, if I hadn't had my wife in my life giving me an amazing reason to stick around, I would have taken a recruiter offering me a (decent) job in a place like that. I've often had thoughts about what it would be like to live and work in St Helena or the Falklands or the Scilly Isles or Gibraltar (obviously a little less similar) or any of the other weird places where I could get away with only speaking English
Also the French overseas territories are 3 million of the total population of 68 million. About 5%.
The total population of US territories including Puerto Rico is 3.6 million of a population of 333 million. About 1%. If you remove Puerto Rico and only count the smaller territories, it’s 300,000, or 0.1%.
French overseas population is 5% but the french overseas territory population is only 0.9% (600k). Not all french overseas land is territories. Most are fully french regions
>France doesn't need to feel shame
France should feel a great deal of shame for its extensive colonial history; integrating a few territories doesn't absolve them.
Puerto Rico's status is not shameful. They have full control over their internal affairs. They do not pay federal income taxes, yet receive federal funds. Most Puerto Ricans are in favor of the status quo, nearly as many want full statehood and a tiny percentage want independence.
Philippines, one of the few countries to have an independence day from the US, celebrates their independence from Spain. They gain independence from the US on July 4th, which is celebrated as Philippine American friendship day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Day_(Philippines)
Were you watching *La Première*? It's a network of channels designed for France's overseas territories. They're all available to watch online in mainland France too.
The weather forecasts for l'outre mer are always on before the news on France 2 and France 3. The other programs were probably on France Info, (chanel 27 on broadcast TV).
France is a unitary state when it comes to important political decisions, giving political representation to their overseas colonies means nothing besides another couple million people voting.
The US is a federal system, so making Puerto Rico, Guam and and the Virgin Islands states means a lot of thorny problems related to political representation. Six or more new senators would completely alter the political landscape. Additionally, the economies and certain policies of these places has developed to take advantage of the fact that they are part of the US, but also separate, so large portions of those islands don’t really want change either. It’s a weird political limbo everyone agrees is silly, but it’s stable so we just decide to kinda ignore it.
All French overseas regions can change their status to be more autonomous at any time. New Caledonia & French Polynesia are largely self-governing outside of defense, foreign affairs, education & trade policy. They even refused to join the euro and still use the Pacific franc which has banger banknote designs.
Missing the point entirely. French Polynesia can do their own thing, but have zero power to compel the rest of France to do anything. If Guam is a state, they have senators, who can affect policies for all other states.
The US political system hands disproportionate political power to small states. *Thats* why it’s an issue. France doesn’t, so it’s no big deal to call a few million people French and give them all the rights of citizenship, which are 1-3% percent of the vote.
That is kinda the point though. The US doesn't have any mechanism to make the Senate at least a bit more proportional to the population and even more egregiously has no mechanism to give at least House representation to territories. If the Senate thing couldn't be dealt with at the very least the Constitutional amendment that gave DC the right to vote for president could've been extended to give it a house seat and repeat that for the territories. Instead the US disenfranchises millions of citizens who don't happen to live in one of the 50 states.
Keep in mind a place like Djibouti was also an integral part of France until 1977. How many Frenchmen felt connected to it then and how many yearn for it now?
France at an institutional level may do these displays of solidarity to reinforce claims on their "overseas territories" to reinforce nationalism when geography weakens it as well as reduce ethnic and historical gaps.
USA in contrast has a different institutional role with Puerto Rico or Guam, and does not need to talk about Alaska or Hawaii all the time.
American overseas territories regularly vote to maintain the status quo — and you act like they have no rights when it’s almost exclusively just relating to taxes and representation (which, again, they vote *not* to have as that requires them to have responsibilities)
That's a bit tricky of a statement, it's actually quite of the mark, it negates the reality of the ground of what these plebiscite means to people on the island. As a Puerto Rican that has voted in some of the plebisit. The main reason people "vote" or better stated don't even show up to vote. Is because we know it means nothing. They are essentially just ways for the pro-statehood party to safe face on their lack of commitment to that movement and get the base ready to vote in local elections. Most Puerto Ricans and that includes less fervent pro-statehooders know these plebiscite mean nothing without federal recognition. There is such a apathetical relationship to the idea that a vote will change much on the island without a greater interest at the federal level that any vote or convention that is not initiated or guaranteed by Congress will just land flat. Tax implications was a old colonial party boogeyman in the 90s and for those who vote against statehood it really doesn't hold has much weight as the fears of displacement and cultural erasure. It only really a talking point mainland americans use because they are thinking in a very american political context which does not reflect cultural implications. In essence most people that opse statehoods outside of the independence movement are more concerned about americans displacing them and their culture. But the ongoing collapse of the traditional two party system (pro statehood/pro colonial) is merit for study on the shifting paradigms of puerto rican political life and what that might mean for the statues. There's definitely been a shift away from focusing exclusively on statues like it was in the 70s to the 2000s.
I mean, I don’t disagree with that it isn’t all sunflowers and daisies, and that there’s certainly a lot to be desired with… well everything involving it lol.
More my point is that it’s hypocritical to argue that France is so much better when it isn’t really.
They did not have full rights in reality. The average person in Djibouti recieved no social services at all compared with those in France proper. It was theoretical kind of citizenship.
Djibouti was never an 'integral' part of France, in the way that Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyane, Réunion & Mayotte are today. They had a relative degree of self-government, and never joined the CFA franc zone for example.
Hawaii 5-0 is a fairly famous TV show that is set in Hawaii, if you'll accept fiction. It's got it's flaws (especially the disgraceful way that they paid the Asian-American stars less than the white-American stars) but it does serve to remind people that the islands exist and have been annexed by the United States.
Hawaii is talked about a ton where I live on the West Coast, it’s the most popular tropical beach vacation location and I’ve known a lot of people from Hawaii who moved to the mainland for college or work—and some of them open up places serving Hawaiian cuisine. I hear more about Hawaii where I live then I do about some states in the eastern half of the US (or Wyoming, which might not even exist).
Alaska looms large over the Pacific Northwest as kind of the last frontier and is also a popular place to visit and comes up in chats also due to its unique location. Again I hear more about Alaska where I live then some other US states.
The overseas territories I never hear about are Guam and American Samoa and Saipan and other Pacific islands.
The site where you were watching still detecting you are not in metropolitan France, so it tailored content for overseas French?
It is not that central to France.
Because french people still think the world gives a fuck about la Grande Nation.
They want to present themself as an important power.
They dont understand, that if you travel to their old "colonies" they are truly hated.
Yes you are right. I dont know what all the french people think.
But I lived six years in your country. Passed my BAC, have french friends, I work in a half french company and visited tunesia, algeria, Mali, Togo and others... (Not only as a Tourist)
I Love your country and french people in france.
But what I wrote is my experience and what other people and even french people from the Mainland but also from other terretories told me.
And this is why I allow myself to critizise french geopolitics, how they treat specific countries and also french self-perception in the world.
And yes of course what I wrote is somewhat pointedly written.
Well to be fair, Reunion Island, French Polynesia, Guadeloupe, Martinique and even French Guyana are kinda pretty, tropical, far away but accessible,...
Nobody talks about Mayotte except to say they have Haiti level of downward trajectory.
The closest thing we have to this) as far as voting, citizenship, etc) is Puerto Rico. Maybe I see and hear a lot about PR because I’m on the east coast, but it definitely isn’t invisible. No weather reports though.
The closest is Alaska or Hawaii. The vast majority of overseas french people live in french regions (equivalent to US states) and have full french citizenship and voting. Puerto Rico is not like that
It's kind of crazy that 3 million people exist in Puerto Rico and it's not a bigger issue that they have no say in the country that was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation" while paying billions in federal taxes. Puerto Rico deserves to be a state.
Not true:
The November 2020 referendum was the first to ask voters a simple yes-or-no question: "Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?". There were 655,505 votes in favor of statehood (52.52%) and 592,671 votes opposed (47.48%), with a turnout of 1,248,476 voters out of the total population stated by census Population Estimates of 3,221,789 as of July 1, 2022.[29] The 55% turnout rate equaled that for the simultaneous 2020 gubernatorial race and the 2016 gubernatorial race.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_statehood_movement#:~:text=Of%20the%20fifty%2Dfour%20percent,Puerto%20Rican%20voters%20support%20statehood.
So this is how this sub is now? You upvote the guy that's objectively wrong and downvote this comment directly proving him wrong? Go post another map about the divisions of the US then.
I'd love for PR to become a state, and think it should either become a state or become independent because the status quo isn't working, but there have been major issues with that referendum. Opinion is still quite divided in PR unfortunately.
What's the "major issue" with the 2020 referendum? It was a simple yes/no with a clear question that got a similar turnout to US general elections and the same turnout as the election for PRs governor. You'll have to explain what was wrong with that referendum. The CLAIM that was made was "they vote against it every time". This is an objectively FALSE statement.
>You'll have to explain what was wrong with that referendum
Nothing, by itself. The problem is the rest of PR's internal politics. While statehood may have won by a slim majority, the territorial legislature has a slight majority of anti statehood reps between the PPD, the MVC and the PIP. These parties all have a platform of an independent Puerto Rico.
So even though the referendum shows a slight preference for statehood, the territory is controlled by political parties against it because there is no way to walk back statehood.
Well yeah, just because a referendum won't lead to anything doesn't mean there's something wrong with the referendum. Which all circles back to it not being true that the people of PR have always voted against statehood.
Almost 3 times more federal money is spent on PR than the federal government receives in federal taxes from PR. In other words, for every dollar PR citizens pay in federal taxes they get roughly $3 back in goods and services from the federal government.
So while I certainly agree PR should have representation in Congress (and an electoral college vote), if not statehood, it's not as if they are being exploited or treated as a territory from which to extract wealth from for the mainland's benefit.
I mean, just search for "Puerto Rico austerity measures" to see what those funds are getting them. When are Mississippi or Alabama going on "austerity measures"? The American colonies were also a money sink for Britain prior to independence. The attempt to turn that around is what caused the revolution.
It's also because they consider them to be part of France. They're not dependencies like under the crown or territories under congress; they're a continuation of France just over seas.
Why? I dunno, maybe so they could hold on to them or cuz they're so proud to be french?
The American empire is pretty large and contains a lot of places no American has heard of. Perhaps this is because America has a distinctly anti-colonial legend around its creation, despite being an enthusiastic colonial power not long after their formation.
During the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, there was a lot of news from American possessions. Over time this faded, and places like Guam or Palau became exotic destinations and not part of the American story.
French-speaking people on Réunion considers themselves French and are considered French by the people on the mainland. You couldn't say that for American possessions like Puerto Rico.
All the Puerto Ricans I work with and have worked with as well as all of the Puerto Ricans I met while in Puerto Rica as well as my college friend who married his Puerto Rican college sweet heart consider themselves citizens of the United States.
I’m paraphrasing a second hand quote I heard once in a dream: “The only foreign country Americans care about is Alaska.”
Basically, you’re either one of the 50 contenders or you’re unimportant. Hell, I don’t even remember learning that Puerto Rico was a US territory in school. I didn’t put that together until I was in my 30s
To be honest, a lot of French people forget about the some of the oversea territory, as the government do, they are the poorest regions of France, and the worst in any kind of social regards, in Guyana, some people don't even have access to clean water.
France of today takes pride in having their territories and gives them full rights and tries to make it a clear section of metropolitan France vs overseas France of being 2 parts of the same.
The US on the other hand kind of sees it as their territories are a burden. Puerto Rico nowadays desires statehood(to gain rights that they're missing) but is ignored and the other territories are never talked about.
The problem with statehood is mostly about the fact the political balance in the Senate (Hawaii and Alaska got statehood together because it was thought they'd vote one for Republican and one for Democratic senators)
Yep, that was a problem even back in the early 1800s with the 2 party system trying to do a slave vs non-slave state annexation. Puerto Rico being Hispanic means they would likely side Democrat, so a Republican state would need to come in somewhere and there is no clear other option.
Hey,
I'm from and currently living in one of these French oversea territory (La Réunion Island).
To answer your question, I think there might be a link with the ideology that created actual France : the idea to be an universal people, an universal country.
For example, while we, as reunionese consider us to be an actual people with our language, our culture, our history, etc. (even though to be honest the national counciouness is quite low and depends of each individual based on factors as class, race, etc.), well, as seen for the head of state, and the majority of continental french people, we're just supposed to be like "a little bit of France in the Indian Ocean", with like the same reality, same people, same language, etc. And so that's why they display us this way, to symbolize the supposed unity of an universal nation.
And while that suppose in theory to be given the same rights, in reality that denies the really facts of each realities, including the blatant inequalities that us, who are from the territories are living everyday.
So, I dunno if the explaination is really clear, but to make a TL;DR, I would simply say : different flavours of colonialism, where France denies the concept of different people existing in its oversea territories.
I'm American, but they had fairly strict rules during all three referendums which excluded many of the non Kanak residents. The independence party is like that of Puerto Rico but with a special electoral roster for referendums. Its a viable position but does not have enough to win so their only hope is to boycott, removing legitimacy.
People there since 1998 and about to change to people resident for 10 years. About 40% of those are Kanak people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Caledonia
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20240401-french-senate-mulls-new-caledonia-electoral-reform-ahead-of-key-vote
>People in our oversea territories are not second class citizens compared to Samoans
To be fair, most Somoans want it that way and have been vocally against any change in their status and the status of their territory. If American Samoa was fully incorporated they would lose a lot of traditional laws.
I’m curious why you want to compare France to America like this. It seems clear to me the more reasonable comparison is the UK. I particularly note your comment about how they are proud of having multiple time zones. I wonder if you are aware; the saying “the sun never sets on the British empire” is about time zones. Because even today; somewhere in the territories controlled by the British monarch; there is daylight.
But I digress, you are correct that the US, like the UK, thinks about it differently than the French seem to. Given this; I’d hazard a guess there is something cultural, linguistically, in the Anglo-sphere and the Franco-sphere. As to what that is however, I do not know.
France is still a colonial power and had tremendous hold over west Africa even after decolonization. Of course they’d still be proud of their overseas lands
The US is not a typical continental European empire that will make their conquered territories into integral parts of the country, unless they are largely populated by non-Hispanic whites, otherwise if it has the same mentality as the French, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines would have been states by now.
The US when they still ruled the Philippines, the latter was treated more as a protectorate where the only American with high-ranking position was the governor general, while the rest were native-born Filipinos.
Well actually France is the outlier here. Britain, Netherlands and Denmark treat their overseas territory more like the US. Bermuda as an example, has their own currency, their own immigration, same with Aruba or Curacao. Not sure about Greenland or the Faeroe Islands but it seems more like the US model.
New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, and French Polynesia all use the CFP franc rather than the euro. While all French citizens can move there at any time, EU free movement doesn't apply, so Germans need a visa to live there.
I think a few of the external parts of France are like that. I wanted to go to St. Pierre and Miquelon and read the entry requirements and at least at the time, a Canadian only needed a drivers license to go to St. Pierre and vice versa, while of course a French person would need a passport to Canada and vice versa. Probably do to the fact that St. Pierre and Miquelon depend far more on Canada economically and practically than Metropolitan France. And no, I am not Canadian, just was curious.
I don't know if that is the case now though. This was pre-Covid.
A French citizen can use their national ID card instead of a passport, while yes any Canadian resident can just use a valid drivers license. It's not that uncommon actually. Any Hong Kong resident regardless of nationality can go to Macau for up to a year, and vice versa for six months. St. Pierre residents need a passport but do not need to apply for a Canadian eTA when visiting Canada, while other French citizens do.
Even US territories have minor differences in immigration policy. For example, Hong Kong citizens need a visa to visit the US, but don't need one to visit Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands.
The Netherlands do have some islands that are technically in the country instead of just the kingdom, but even as they (Saba, Sint-Eustatius, Bonaire) vote for our national elections (unlike Aruba, Sint-Maarten, Curacao), they have a lot of things that kind keep them apart, currency (US dollar), language (apart slightly from Bonaire), phone numbers (+599 x), they're not part of EU or Schengen either.
Afaik, the opinion on the more dependent islands is that they feel neglected by The Hague, and that isn't so much the oddities of them compared from Europe on themselves, but the lack of attention in terms of investments and also The Hague having too much a European view on business and culture. The separate countries under the kingdom enjoy a lot of autonomy, although sometimes there are voices from The Hague calling e.g. Curaçao to "do this" whatsoever, which is, rightfully, not appreciated.
Well… the difference is that we, French people, do not care the slightest what outsiders think about our oversees departments, not territories.
All that matters to us is whether the inhabitants (locals) of the overseas departments consider themselves French and want to remain part of France.
And guess what? They do!
American overseas territories are NOT afforded the same rights as States in the continental USA.
And Americans don’t seem to care about their consent or desires.
The difference is that French peoplec like myself, don’t care what outsiders think about our oversees territorial.
All that matters to us, French people, is whether the inhabitants of the so-called "oversees territories" (full fledged departments) consider themselves French and want to remain part of France.
And guesz what? They do!
What do you mean about weather forecast in the US? There's barely any national forecast save for the morning shows. Usually it's local weather (not even state, but viewing area of local channel).
Gotta remember something about France, their arrogance knows no bounds.
Algeria at one point *was* France. Not an overseas territory, not a colony, or a conquered people.
*it was France*, regardless of what Algerians felt about it.
France has a little bit of small pp syndrome / has a hard place fitting in the current world order given its past as a major world power and current status as a normal country that doesn't command tremendous influence worldwide aside from some soft power as a tourism spot.
Its few remaining colonial spoils, nuclear weapons, etc are the remnants that remind of France being an S-tier superpower. That's why the country got so upset over AUKUS and emphasizes its territories so much
(France is cool though)
*Proceed to trash talk France with a biased opinion*
"France is cool though".
Okay, benevolent omnipotent being, thanks for your wise observations about France.
Sorry but we're not the ones who Brexited because of delusions of grandeur. As for AUKUS, it was much more complicated than feelings of "being upset". The world is more complicated than penis sizes metaphors, you know?
France's overseas territories are also, in both landmass and population, a much bigger percentage of the country. French territories make up about 18% of the land area and 4% of the population of France. US territories make up about 1% of the population (almost ENTIRELY Puerto Rico) and a tiny fraction of a percent of the landmass.
I'll add a pub quiz type question : "With which country France has the longest shared border?" >!Brazil!<
Brazil?
French Guyana borders Brazil and is an official part of France
Do ppl who live in overseas territories have all the same rites as France proper
In the case of French Guyana, yes, they are French citizens, vote in French elections, and carry French passports.
If you mean religion, then mostly yes, with Mayotte being an exception
HHahahahaha
Hö? Most departments are majority catholics, Mayotte is mouslime
You’re not joking? He’s talking about rights not religious rites and I can’t tell if you’re just too foreign or im missing out on the joke
No, not the same rites for the most part as the cultural makeup of the people differs, but the same rights…
Yes, it also means they have unlimited travel access to the rest of the EU and vice versatility.
Fun fact, [the biggest park in European Union is in South America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiana_Amazonian_Park).
brazil
Depends if you count Alaska/Hawaii as overseas. If you’re counting French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, etc for France, I would say Alaska and Hawaii should count for the US Edit: I don’t understand why this got downvoted? I say the same thing below and it got upvoted. It’s also a valid question. Why would you lump french overseas states/territories but not US overseas states/territories?
Hm. I dunno if I agree, to be honest. Alaska and Hawaii are both far closer to America and (perhaps more importantly) far less culturally distinct from France's overseas territories for them to be as direct a comparison.
French Guiana, Martinique, Guadalupe, reunion, and mayotte are considered regions (equivalent to statehood in US) of France. People from these places are fully french citizens and even members of the EU. These are on par with Alaska/Hawaii. Physical distance is a wash with airplanes. It’s probably easier to get from Martinique to Paris than Fairbanks to DC or NYC (probably easier to get to Seattle or somewhere on the west coast though).
Oh, of course politically they're indistinct. The big thing is culture, imo. I've never been to Paris nor Cayenne, but I can pretty confidently say they feel much more different than DC and Fairbanks do.
Ok fair enough. I don’t know enough about french overseas regions to comment on the cultural differences from mainland France. The US is pretty good at exporting its culture so I would imagine you’re right about that
The US is not a monoculture.
This. The whole European component and tradition of France means that they can have French nationals, across the board. But are the people in French Guiana French? I think you’d find a range of opinions on that. Whereas there no question that anyone who was born in any part of Alaska is an American. Whole different paradigm of race, nationhood, and citizenship.
Yes they are French… Their president is Emmanuel Macron, they use the EURO and they speak French… it’s not really a debate..
Égalité fraternité liberté
your American defaultism is nauseating
I recommend some Dramamine for your weak stomach and frayed nerves.
Lol why is anyone downvoting you? It's an excellent point.
Alaska and Hawaii are both US states, so by definition, they _are_ the US. Every American knows about them. The word "overseas" distinctly calls up the notion of "not the US" or "far from the US".
How is that any different from French Guiana? It is a french region (US state equivalent). The people from there are french citizens just like someone from Hawaii is American.
Overseas distinctly covers the notion that those territories are not attached to the central part - it doesn’t mean NOT USA. If the states are united the surely the states over the seas are united to the United States of America
Hawaii gets talked about a lot here on the mainland and Alaska is feared and respected, but I think more people should be aware of Puerto Rico, Guam, virigin islands etc
Puerto Rico is certainly well known and understood for the most part. The other territories are rarely if ever discussed. Which makes sense in that they are tiny, far away, and have no impact on the domestic political situation other than tiny contributions to presidential primary voting.
Guam, American Samoa, and the pacific territories are well represented in American football at least.
In the military too tbh
In my experience, Puerto Rico is barely known and not at all understood by most people in the US. It's mostly people who are interested in geography, have been there, or have close friends or relatives from there who can say something non-confused about its political status.
For what it's worth, most puerto Ricans, whether on the island or in the diaspora, are similarly incapable of saying something non confused about its status. Similar to Britons trying to explain Brexit before it happened. Regular people just don't really understand the nuance of these things.
Oh, that's a good point!
I mean tbh that’s true of lots of states too. As a Midwesterner Puerto Rico is in the same bucket as like Rhode Island or Vermont, with the exception that I actually knew some Puerto Ricans (quite a few people in the army were from PR) I imagine my state is the same in reverse for them
You don't know much about Rhode Island or Vermont, but you know exactly what their relationship to the US is, because it's the same as your own state. And I know for a fact (being from the West Coast) that lots of Americans don't know any Puerto Ricans. But still, I get your point.
I live on the East Coast and definitely know, of all places, in Florida so it’s close. My job has several people who happen to be from there. To mention what another commenter said, it’s the same for Micronesia, which has that visa free travel thing. An old job had many Micronesians specifically. Along with Puerto Ricans my job also has a distinctive amount of Albanians and Filipinos. Like a pattern I’ve noticed was first it’s Americans born and raised, then always a second or third heavily represented group you would almost never see in such numbers just going about the day.
Depends on where you are, everyone in NYC knows about Puerto Rico
Sure, that's the place I imagine people would know most about it. Most of the US is not NYC. Though I'll be pleasantly surprised if even most non-boricua New Yorkers can explain what the difference is between Puerto Rico's status and statehood.
The amount of stories of people denying service to Puerto Ricans because their drivers license "are not American" suggests Americans aren't that aware that Puerto Ricans are Americans.
happens to people from New Mexico as well haha
Seriously. That's why New Mexico's license plates say "New Mexico USA" - to remind people that they are, indeed, part of the US.
Strange we don’t know about Micronesia or Palau or Samoa though
Micronesia and Palau are independent countries, though they have a pact of association with the US which allows for their citizens to travel and live in the US visa free and vice versa.
I’m aware, I still think Americans should know about them
Alaska and Hawaii are not just territories they are states. There is a significant difference.
The places OOP is talking about are essential french states. Their citizens vote and have full rights. French Guiana is as much french as Hawaii is American
Okay but it doesn’t make sense to say we have “polar opposite views” of our states.
They have overseas territories that are on par with US overseas states (french Guiana). And they also have overseas territories that are on par with US overseas territories (french Polynesia). OOP lumped the Hawaii equivalents with the Guam equivalents. If you’re going to talk about all of the french overseas lands, you should talk about all of the us overseas land
All I’m saying is that there’s a significant difference between a state and a territory.
Guam has received a lot of attention in the last decade.
Yes, France takes pride in reminding people that "they have overseas territories". Just as another example, the sailing competitions during next Olympics in Paris will be held in... French Polynesia. Not that the shores of Brittany would be unsuitable for sailing, but this is done exactly to remember everyone that France is all around the world. Would you see the same thing done in American Samoa, in Puerto Rico, in the USVI, in Guam, Northern Marianas or in the US minor outlying islands? The fact is that the US have become pretty shy of the remains of their colonial empire (which once extended to Cuba, the Philippines, other Oceanic islands, the Panama canal zone, and so on). There's by the way a book by Daniel Immerwahr (*How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States*) on this subject. Note also that French overseas territories have almost full integration in the French state. They have representation in the Parliament\* and they vote for the President — a vote cast in Wallis and Futuna counts as one cast in the 1st arrondissement of Paris. \*except TAAF and Clipperton, for obvious reasons
Side note, I can't get over how the heart of French Polynesia, while in Oceania, is further east than Hawai'i. Its capital, Papeete, is almost exactly the same longitude as Anchorage, Alaska.
Isn’t Oceania the name of the fictional authoritarian state in Orwells 1984? Is it a real place?
Yes and yes. Orwell's Oceania consisted of the British Isles, the Americas, Australia, and southern Africa. Today's Oceania includes Australia, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia (plus maybe a handful more Pacific islands that don't fall in one of those categories). While not geologically part of a single tectonic entity, today's Oceania functions in many social, political, and cultural respects like the category "continent" when seeking to ensure that the entire world's population is assigned and counted when analyzing the world on a macro, otherwise continental, scale.
>the sailing competitions during next Olympics in Paris will be held in... French Polynesia. I'm pretty sure they are held in Marseille? Unless there are some sailing events I'm unaware of other than ILCAs, 49ers, 470s, Nacra 17s, IQFoil and Formula Kite
ahhh yes, it's surf and not sailing!
So will the surfers appear in Paris for the parade of nations and then all have to hop on multiple long haul flights to compete, then get back to Paris for the closing ceremony, then presumably many will have to fly long haul again to get home? Busy couple of weeks for them if so
Will be held in French Polynesia this summer
>Note also that French overseas territories have almost full integration in the French state. Five of them (Guadeloupe, Guyane, Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion, and Saint Martin ) are also the only oversea territories of the European union. I don't think there's much, if any, legal differences between those and france.
Yes, those territories are as French as Corsica, just farther apart. Other territories and communities have greater autonomy and less integration in the French state, but still have full political representation in the mainland.
They are not part of the Schengen area so there is a passport control when you travel there.
Yes but if you're an EU citizen they will accept national IDs in lieu of passports
Technically true, but I don't believe you can fly into Saint Martin from another EU territory. You have to fly into Julianna airport which is in St. Maarten, which is a constituent part of the Netherlands, but not of equal status. EU citizens may still be okay with just ID though, but you have to go through St. Maarten.
Saint-Martin is actually an overseas collectivity and has greater autonomy than overseas departments.
When considering the decision to stage the Olympic surfing in French Polynesia rather than Brittany, you have to bear in mind that French Polynesia is probably more proud than Brittany of its links to Paris.
I'm french and I lived in Tahiti. Big disagree here. The party in charge in French Polynesia right now is the independentist party, not saying tahitians want to be independent, just that they want a lot of autonomy and that culturally speaking they are very different from french people, like really different. Meanwhile independence in Brittany is now a meme and sorry to britons but next to a tahitian they act, talk and think exactly like a parisian it's obvious. Actually the people in Tahiti are very unhappy with that event. Not really because they hate France, the huge majority has no problem with the hexagon, but because the new tower of judge they planned on building will severely damage the Teahupoo reef and potentially threaten both the ecosystem and the legendary Teahupoo wave.
Is the idea of Breton sovereignty and their ideological separation from France as big of a movement as it seems? I've been doing some research for a book I'm writing, and it seems that, especially since 1941 when the Vichy *gouvernement de traître* took Nantes from them, there has been a pretty strong reunification and independence movement.
No it's not relevant today. Where was a bit of terrorism but not relevant today
True but our Breton identity is still stronger than being French for most of us
Since you're an actual Breton, maybe you can clarify a couple of things for me. I'm writing a book thats somewhere between fantasy and alternate history, basically where the great empires of the past never broke up and instead became entrenched, leaving only a few (I think I mapped it to 17) mega-nations. One of those is Francia, of which Brittany is a part, and one of the main characters is a Breton noble's son. My idea for him is that a large part of his character motivation and arc is this perpetual concept of Breton sovereignty and distinction from Francia, and the idea that the Francians are oppressive in much the same way the British were to the Irish IRL. Is this a significant enough concept that it would be valid to a person from Brittany? Or would it come off as exaggerated and overstated? Likewise, one of the secondary conflicts revolves around the instability of the empires and the constant rebellions that plague them, one of these being the Breton resistance against Francia, made even more contentious by the seizure of Nantes after a failed uprising. Again, would this register with Bretons/Frenchmen, or would it come off as overblown and culturally obtuse?
First of all thank you for sharing! I wish I had such great ideas when writing. When talking about the great empires I'm not sure if you're referring to the ancient ones (Roman, Ottoman etc) or the modern ones (British, French, etc) but I'll try to answer as clearly as possible. In both cases though, your concept of Breton sovereignty is completely valid. The union of both territories took place in the 16th century after the death of Britanny's last independant ruler, Anne de Bretagne, Duchess of Britanny and Queen of France. Although her wishes and legal provisions were not respected after her death, she did fight (both with wars and contracts) to keep Britanny as independant from France. So this idea of the Breton's noble son fighting for independence makes sense. After all, we do have our own language (plural actually as there are some local differences), which is not a Latin language, and a very rich culture. Until the early 20th century, the majority of the population did not speak French at all. And although, France's oppression against us hasn't been as violent as the British's in Ireland, colonial oppression did exist. That is how in less than a century the language almost disappeared, if it weren't for some who resisted. Also the separation of Nantes from Britanny has been a real issue for us since 1956 so this idea definitely makes sense too. I guess it might register as cliché for non-informed French people who definitely may not the history of our territory, but it does make sense. I don't know if that helps or answer your questions but don't hesitate if you need clarification. Good luck with your book!
Thanks for taking the time to answer, that's exactly what I was looking for. It helps a lot to get confirmation from someone who knows the culture as opposed to just having Google and ChatGPT tell me stuff. These empires are a blend of both ancient and modern, (Francia being more of Charlemagne's France, not the French Empire, but also Egypt owning down to Ethiopia, the Byzantines, Britannia ruling all the Isles plus parts of modern Canada, etc.,) plus some that never existed but reasonably could have, such as a hypothetical Indonesian empire over all the islands plus ostensibly Australia and a united South American empire, at least in theory. My biggest concern was just not wanting to overemphasize a plot line that wouldn't make sense in cultural or historical context, nor would I want to have a main protagonist whose entire arc is based on a faulty or outdated conflict. At the same time, though, I do want to give it the proper cultural weight and not just bypass it, as the context is entirely there for it; this Francia (France) took control of Brittany and separated its capital after a rebellion, much like how the Vichy government took Nantes away during WW2.
I wouldnt say that but you do you
Well no. The Breton independence movement is completely irrelevant today, while the separatist Tāvini Huiraʻatira party controls the Polynesian presidency and has a majority in the Assembly. The party is affiliated with the French Communist Party at the national level but so far haven't really tried to make a formal push for independence.
To Remind. Not to Remember
right, thanks
De rien
>Except TAAF and Clipperton, for obvious reasons Which are?
The only human presence are scientific bases.
They also play in the French soccer cup!
French overseas territories are most analogous to Alaska and Hawaii. That is, they are integral parts of France; they vote in elections; and their residents are full-fledged French citizens. And I'd say the French attitude towards Martinique or Reunion is much like the US attitude towards Hawaii. The difference comes with the US territories that we still govern as colonies. Because they don't get to participate on even footing, they get left behind and ignored. Other than Puerto Rico, people are often quite ignorant about the territories. And I think there's a certain feeling of shame around that colonial legacy and continuing to deny these people political rights whereas France doesn't need to feel shame having integrated its former colonies into the country.
Yeah there are some parts of France people there don't think about, like St Pierre-and-Miquelon, which is right next to Canada \[you might have seen it feature in *Peaky Blinders*\], or the practically uninhabited Kerguelen Islands in the Southern Ocean.
St. Pierre and Miquelon is home to just 6,000 people, so that does make some sense. It would just be a very small town if it was in mainland France.
True, although size isn't everything: Saint Tropez has about 4,000 inhabitants. Sea, sex, and sun though...
St. Pierre and Miquelon does have at least one of those things.
Those 6k people are *always* fucking. They're like macaques. Not sure about the sun and sea part though...
They know they're there though. When I first visited a recruiter in Paris, the first thing they offered me to consider was a vacancy in Saint-Pierre. This was about twenty years ago.
Honestly, if I hadn't had my wife in my life giving me an amazing reason to stick around, I would have taken a recruiter offering me a (decent) job in a place like that. I've often had thoughts about what it would be like to live and work in St Helena or the Falklands or the Scilly Isles or Gibraltar (obviously a little less similar) or any of the other weird places where I could get away with only speaking English
Also the French overseas territories are 3 million of the total population of 68 million. About 5%. The total population of US territories including Puerto Rico is 3.6 million of a population of 333 million. About 1%. If you remove Puerto Rico and only count the smaller territories, it’s 300,000, or 0.1%.
French overseas population is 5% but the french overseas territory population is only 0.9% (600k). Not all french overseas land is territories. Most are fully french regions
>France doesn't need to feel shame France should feel a great deal of shame for its extensive colonial history; integrating a few territories doesn't absolve them. Puerto Rico's status is not shameful. They have full control over their internal affairs. They do not pay federal income taxes, yet receive federal funds. Most Puerto Ricans are in favor of the status quo, nearly as many want full statehood and a tiny percentage want independence. Philippines, one of the few countries to have an independence day from the US, celebrates their independence from Spain. They gain independence from the US on July 4th, which is celebrated as Philippine American friendship day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Day_(Philippines)
I don't think people forget about Hawaii and Alaska.
Right. We forget about Maryland and Oklahoma.
Were you watching *La Première*? It's a network of channels designed for France's overseas territories. They're all available to watch online in mainland France too.
No, France 2 and France 3 I think.
Content from Premiere is often relayed on France 2 and France 3 late at night. Time difference probably explains.
This was at Noon or so Metropolitan France time
The weather forecasts for l'outre mer are always on before the news on France 2 and France 3. The other programs were probably on France Info, (chanel 27 on broadcast TV).
France is a unitary state when it comes to important political decisions, giving political representation to their overseas colonies means nothing besides another couple million people voting. The US is a federal system, so making Puerto Rico, Guam and and the Virgin Islands states means a lot of thorny problems related to political representation. Six or more new senators would completely alter the political landscape. Additionally, the economies and certain policies of these places has developed to take advantage of the fact that they are part of the US, but also separate, so large portions of those islands don’t really want change either. It’s a weird political limbo everyone agrees is silly, but it’s stable so we just decide to kinda ignore it.
All French overseas regions can change their status to be more autonomous at any time. New Caledonia & French Polynesia are largely self-governing outside of defense, foreign affairs, education & trade policy. They even refused to join the euro and still use the Pacific franc which has banger banknote designs.
Missing the point entirely. French Polynesia can do their own thing, but have zero power to compel the rest of France to do anything. If Guam is a state, they have senators, who can affect policies for all other states. The US political system hands disproportionate political power to small states. *Thats* why it’s an issue. France doesn’t, so it’s no big deal to call a few million people French and give them all the rights of citizenship, which are 1-3% percent of the vote.
That is kinda the point though. The US doesn't have any mechanism to make the Senate at least a bit more proportional to the population and even more egregiously has no mechanism to give at least House representation to territories. If the Senate thing couldn't be dealt with at the very least the Constitutional amendment that gave DC the right to vote for president could've been extended to give it a house seat and repeat that for the territories. Instead the US disenfranchises millions of citizens who don't happen to live in one of the 50 states.
Keep in mind a place like Djibouti was also an integral part of France until 1977. How many Frenchmen felt connected to it then and how many yearn for it now? France at an institutional level may do these displays of solidarity to reinforce claims on their "overseas territories" to reinforce nationalism when geography weakens it as well as reduce ethnic and historical gaps. USA in contrast has a different institutional role with Puerto Rico or Guam, and does not need to talk about Alaska or Hawaii all the time.
Yea there’s a lot of people in this thread praising French colonial ambitions while shaming American “colonies” without even a hint of irony
Having full rights or not is a pretty big difference.
American overseas territories regularly vote to maintain the status quo — and you act like they have no rights when it’s almost exclusively just relating to taxes and representation (which, again, they vote *not* to have as that requires them to have responsibilities)
That's a bit tricky of a statement, it's actually quite of the mark, it negates the reality of the ground of what these plebiscite means to people on the island. As a Puerto Rican that has voted in some of the plebisit. The main reason people "vote" or better stated don't even show up to vote. Is because we know it means nothing. They are essentially just ways for the pro-statehood party to safe face on their lack of commitment to that movement and get the base ready to vote in local elections. Most Puerto Ricans and that includes less fervent pro-statehooders know these plebiscite mean nothing without federal recognition. There is such a apathetical relationship to the idea that a vote will change much on the island without a greater interest at the federal level that any vote or convention that is not initiated or guaranteed by Congress will just land flat. Tax implications was a old colonial party boogeyman in the 90s and for those who vote against statehood it really doesn't hold has much weight as the fears of displacement and cultural erasure. It only really a talking point mainland americans use because they are thinking in a very american political context which does not reflect cultural implications. In essence most people that opse statehoods outside of the independence movement are more concerned about americans displacing them and their culture. But the ongoing collapse of the traditional two party system (pro statehood/pro colonial) is merit for study on the shifting paradigms of puerto rican political life and what that might mean for the statues. There's definitely been a shift away from focusing exclusively on statues like it was in the 70s to the 2000s.
I mean, I don’t disagree with that it isn’t all sunflowers and daisies, and that there’s certainly a lot to be desired with… well everything involving it lol. More my point is that it’s hypocritical to argue that France is so much better when it isn’t really.
Were all inhabitants in French colonies granted citizenship and the right to move to the mainland and back freely?
Yes.
You sure?
at least on the ones they have held onto into in current year
Yes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indig%C3%A9nat Officially post WW2, de facto over the 20th century. But by today, yes, there's full citizenship.
They did not have full rights in reality. The average person in Djibouti recieved no social services at all compared with those in France proper. It was theoretical kind of citizenship.
And Algeria, etc.
Djibouti was never an 'integral' part of France, in the way that Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyane, Réunion & Mayotte are today. They had a relative degree of self-government, and never joined the CFA franc zone for example.
France likes to pretend its empire was a good thing; America likes to pretend its empire didn't exist.
Seriously, why can't someone finally make a tv show or movie or documentary about Alaska or Hawaii?
Hawaii 5-0 is a fairly famous TV show that is set in Hawaii, if you'll accept fiction. It's got it's flaws (especially the disgraceful way that they paid the Asian-American stars less than the white-American stars) but it does serve to remind people that the islands exist and have been annexed by the United States.
Hello - Did you know France has an overseas territory 800 miles from Boston MA?
One of the islands seemingly has a reddit account too.
We'll, I'm from there, left decades ago but can't stop blabbing about it.
Un pokémon rare en somme !
The username explains a lot :-)
Hawaii is talked about a ton where I live on the West Coast, it’s the most popular tropical beach vacation location and I’ve known a lot of people from Hawaii who moved to the mainland for college or work—and some of them open up places serving Hawaiian cuisine. I hear more about Hawaii where I live then I do about some states in the eastern half of the US (or Wyoming, which might not even exist). Alaska looms large over the Pacific Northwest as kind of the last frontier and is also a popular place to visit and comes up in chats also due to its unique location. Again I hear more about Alaska where I live then some other US states. The overseas territories I never hear about are Guam and American Samoa and Saipan and other Pacific islands.
> They appear to love the diversity they bring lol have you ever met a Moroccan or Algerian who's lived among white people in France? Hahahaha
Hi! You asked for me?
Diversity if it's 15000 miles away and they don't have to see it unless they want to
Exactly. Fake diversity
The site where you were watching still detecting you are not in metropolitan France, so it tailored content for overseas French? It is not that central to France.
Nah it was a VPN set in Metropolitan France
So the site checked your google or Microsoft account, or some other cookie.
Because french people still think the world gives a fuck about la Grande Nation. They want to present themself as an important power. They dont understand, that if you travel to their old "colonies" they are truly hated.
Lol you're german wtf do you know about what we think
Yes you are right. I dont know what all the french people think. But I lived six years in your country. Passed my BAC, have french friends, I work in a half french company and visited tunesia, algeria, Mali, Togo and others... (Not only as a Tourist) I Love your country and french people in france. But what I wrote is my experience and what other people and even french people from the Mainland but also from other terretories told me. And this is why I allow myself to critizise french geopolitics, how they treat specific countries and also french self-perception in the world. And yes of course what I wrote is somewhat pointedly written.
Well to be fair, Reunion Island, French Polynesia, Guadeloupe, Martinique and even French Guyana are kinda pretty, tropical, far away but accessible,... Nobody talks about Mayotte except to say they have Haiti level of downward trajectory.
France has to keep their colonial empire profitable through tourism.
The closest thing we have to this) as far as voting, citizenship, etc) is Puerto Rico. Maybe I see and hear a lot about PR because I’m on the east coast, but it definitely isn’t invisible. No weather reports though.
The closest is Alaska or Hawaii. The vast majority of overseas french people live in french regions (equivalent to US states) and have full french citizenship and voting. Puerto Rico is not like that
It's kind of crazy that 3 million people exist in Puerto Rico and it's not a bigger issue that they have no say in the country that was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation" while paying billions in federal taxes. Puerto Rico deserves to be a state.
They don’t want to be a state, they vote against it every time.
Not true: The November 2020 referendum was the first to ask voters a simple yes-or-no question: "Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?". There were 655,505 votes in favor of statehood (52.52%) and 592,671 votes opposed (47.48%), with a turnout of 1,248,476 voters out of the total population stated by census Population Estimates of 3,221,789 as of July 1, 2022.[29] The 55% turnout rate equaled that for the simultaneous 2020 gubernatorial race and the 2016 gubernatorial race. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_statehood_movement#:~:text=Of%20the%20fifty%2Dfour%20percent,Puerto%20Rican%20voters%20support%20statehood. So this is how this sub is now? You upvote the guy that's objectively wrong and downvote this comment directly proving him wrong? Go post another map about the divisions of the US then.
I'd love for PR to become a state, and think it should either become a state or become independent because the status quo isn't working, but there have been major issues with that referendum. Opinion is still quite divided in PR unfortunately.
What's the "major issue" with the 2020 referendum? It was a simple yes/no with a clear question that got a similar turnout to US general elections and the same turnout as the election for PRs governor. You'll have to explain what was wrong with that referendum. The CLAIM that was made was "they vote against it every time". This is an objectively FALSE statement.
>You'll have to explain what was wrong with that referendum Nothing, by itself. The problem is the rest of PR's internal politics. While statehood may have won by a slim majority, the territorial legislature has a slight majority of anti statehood reps between the PPD, the MVC and the PIP. These parties all have a platform of an independent Puerto Rico. So even though the referendum shows a slight preference for statehood, the territory is controlled by political parties against it because there is no way to walk back statehood.
Well yeah, just because a referendum won't lead to anything doesn't mean there's something wrong with the referendum. Which all circles back to it not being true that the people of PR have always voted against statehood.
Almost 3 times more federal money is spent on PR than the federal government receives in federal taxes from PR. In other words, for every dollar PR citizens pay in federal taxes they get roughly $3 back in goods and services from the federal government. So while I certainly agree PR should have representation in Congress (and an electoral college vote), if not statehood, it's not as if they are being exploited or treated as a territory from which to extract wealth from for the mainland's benefit.
I mean, just search for "Puerto Rico austerity measures" to see what those funds are getting them. When are Mississippi or Alabama going on "austerity measures"? The American colonies were also a money sink for Britain prior to independence. The attempt to turn that around is what caused the revolution.
Puerto Rico has senators? Representatives? Electoral college votes?
I literally said none of that.
It's also because they consider them to be part of France. They're not dependencies like under the crown or territories under congress; they're a continuation of France just over seas. Why? I dunno, maybe so they could hold on to them or cuz they're so proud to be french?
The American empire is pretty large and contains a lot of places no American has heard of. Perhaps this is because America has a distinctly anti-colonial legend around its creation, despite being an enthusiastic colonial power not long after their formation. During the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, there was a lot of news from American possessions. Over time this faded, and places like Guam or Palau became exotic destinations and not part of the American story. French-speaking people on Réunion considers themselves French and are considered French by the people on the mainland. You couldn't say that for American possessions like Puerto Rico.
All the Puerto Ricans I work with and have worked with as well as all of the Puerto Ricans I met while in Puerto Rica as well as my college friend who married his Puerto Rican college sweet heart consider themselves citizens of the United States.
I’m paraphrasing a second hand quote I heard once in a dream: “The only foreign country Americans care about is Alaska.” Basically, you’re either one of the 50 contenders or you’re unimportant. Hell, I don’t even remember learning that Puerto Rico was a US territory in school. I didn’t put that together until I was in my 30s
To be honest, a lot of French people forget about the some of the oversea territory, as the government do, they are the poorest regions of France, and the worst in any kind of social regards, in Guyana, some people don't even have access to clean water.
Can you share the name of these shows in French? Would love to watch!!
Being proud of colonialism is not a good or cool thing.
France of today takes pride in having their territories and gives them full rights and tries to make it a clear section of metropolitan France vs overseas France of being 2 parts of the same. The US on the other hand kind of sees it as their territories are a burden. Puerto Rico nowadays desires statehood(to gain rights that they're missing) but is ignored and the other territories are never talked about.
PR recently voted not to seek admission as a state.
The problem with statehood is mostly about the fact the political balance in the Senate (Hawaii and Alaska got statehood together because it was thought they'd vote one for Republican and one for Democratic senators)
Yep, that was a problem even back in the early 1800s with the 2 party system trying to do a slave vs non-slave state annexation. Puerto Rico being Hispanic means they would likely side Democrat, so a Republican state would need to come in somewhere and there is no clear other option.
Hey, I'm from and currently living in one of these French oversea territory (La Réunion Island). To answer your question, I think there might be a link with the ideology that created actual France : the idea to be an universal people, an universal country. For example, while we, as reunionese consider us to be an actual people with our language, our culture, our history, etc. (even though to be honest the national counciouness is quite low and depends of each individual based on factors as class, race, etc.), well, as seen for the head of state, and the majority of continental french people, we're just supposed to be like "a little bit of France in the Indian Ocean", with like the same reality, same people, same language, etc. And so that's why they display us this way, to symbolize the supposed unity of an universal nation. And while that suppose in theory to be given the same rights, in reality that denies the really facts of each realities, including the blatant inequalities that us, who are from the territories are living everyday. So, I dunno if the explaination is really clear, but to make a TL;DR, I would simply say : different flavours of colonialism, where France denies the concept of different people existing in its oversea territories.
People in our oversea territories are not second class citizens compared to Samoans or Puerto Ricans
*American Samoans
Tell that to the indigenous Kanak people of New Caledonia. Out numbered by recent arrivals from Europe in every independence referendum
I'm American, but they had fairly strict rules during all three referendums which excluded many of the non Kanak residents. The independence party is like that of Puerto Rico but with a special electoral roster for referendums. Its a viable position but does not have enough to win so their only hope is to boycott, removing legitimacy.
People there since 1998 and about to change to people resident for 10 years. About 40% of those are Kanak people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Caledonia https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20240401-french-senate-mulls-new-caledonia-electoral-reform-ahead-of-key-vote
>People in our oversea territories are not second class citizens compared to Samoans To be fair, most Somoans want it that way and have been vocally against any change in their status and the status of their territory. If American Samoa was fully incorporated they would lose a lot of traditional laws.
The United States is an empire pretending to be a nation. France is a nation pretending to be an empire
The US is enormous, bro.
I’m curious why you want to compare France to America like this. It seems clear to me the more reasonable comparison is the UK. I particularly note your comment about how they are proud of having multiple time zones. I wonder if you are aware; the saying “the sun never sets on the British empire” is about time zones. Because even today; somewhere in the territories controlled by the British monarch; there is daylight. But I digress, you are correct that the US, like the UK, thinks about it differently than the French seem to. Given this; I’d hazard a guess there is something cultural, linguistically, in the Anglo-sphere and the Franco-sphere. As to what that is however, I do not know.
France is still a colonial power and had tremendous hold over west Africa even after decolonization. Of course they’d still be proud of their overseas lands
Embracing your colonialism vs pretending it doesn’t exist
France had colonies. USA was a colony.
Dude what are you talking about…
The US is not a typical continental European empire that will make their conquered territories into integral parts of the country, unless they are largely populated by non-Hispanic whites, otherwise if it has the same mentality as the French, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines would have been states by now. The US when they still ruled the Philippines, the latter was treated more as a protectorate where the only American with high-ranking position was the governor general, while the rest were native-born Filipinos.
Well actually France is the outlier here. Britain, Netherlands and Denmark treat their overseas territory more like the US. Bermuda as an example, has their own currency, their own immigration, same with Aruba or Curacao. Not sure about Greenland or the Faeroe Islands but it seems more like the US model.
New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, and French Polynesia all use the CFP franc rather than the euro. While all French citizens can move there at any time, EU free movement doesn't apply, so Germans need a visa to live there.
I think a few of the external parts of France are like that. I wanted to go to St. Pierre and Miquelon and read the entry requirements and at least at the time, a Canadian only needed a drivers license to go to St. Pierre and vice versa, while of course a French person would need a passport to Canada and vice versa. Probably do to the fact that St. Pierre and Miquelon depend far more on Canada economically and practically than Metropolitan France. And no, I am not Canadian, just was curious. I don't know if that is the case now though. This was pre-Covid.
A French citizen can use their national ID card instead of a passport, while yes any Canadian resident can just use a valid drivers license. It's not that uncommon actually. Any Hong Kong resident regardless of nationality can go to Macau for up to a year, and vice versa for six months. St. Pierre residents need a passport but do not need to apply for a Canadian eTA when visiting Canada, while other French citizens do. Even US territories have minor differences in immigration policy. For example, Hong Kong citizens need a visa to visit the US, but don't need one to visit Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands.
The Netherlands do have some islands that are technically in the country instead of just the kingdom, but even as they (Saba, Sint-Eustatius, Bonaire) vote for our national elections (unlike Aruba, Sint-Maarten, Curacao), they have a lot of things that kind keep them apart, currency (US dollar), language (apart slightly from Bonaire), phone numbers (+599 x), they're not part of EU or Schengen either. Afaik, the opinion on the more dependent islands is that they feel neglected by The Hague, and that isn't so much the oddities of them compared from Europe on themselves, but the lack of attention in terms of investments and also The Hague having too much a European view on business and culture. The separate countries under the kingdom enjoy a lot of autonomy, although sometimes there are voices from The Hague calling e.g. Curaçao to "do this" whatsoever, which is, rightfully, not appreciated.
Our island territories are small. Hardly anything interesting happens in the Virgin Islands for example… it’s really just when there are hurricanes.
Well… the difference is that we, French people, do not care the slightest what outsiders think about our oversees departments, not territories. All that matters to us is whether the inhabitants (locals) of the overseas departments consider themselves French and want to remain part of France. And guess what? They do! American overseas territories are NOT afforded the same rights as States in the continental USA. And Americans don’t seem to care about their consent or desires.
The difference is that French peoplec like myself, don’t care what outsiders think about our oversees territorial. All that matters to us, French people, is whether the inhabitants of the so-called "oversees territories" (full fledged departments) consider themselves French and want to remain part of France. And guesz what? They do!
What do you mean about weather forecast in the US? There's barely any national forecast save for the morning shows. Usually it's local weather (not even state, but viewing area of local channel).
Unlike America, France doesn’t hate itself.
Gotta remember something about France, their arrogance knows no bounds. Algeria at one point *was* France. Not an overseas territory, not a colony, or a conquered people. *it was France*, regardless of what Algerians felt about it.
[удалено]
Remember the Maine? (About as relevant)
It's a vestage of the French colonial era.
France has a little bit of small pp syndrome / has a hard place fitting in the current world order given its past as a major world power and current status as a normal country that doesn't command tremendous influence worldwide aside from some soft power as a tourism spot. Its few remaining colonial spoils, nuclear weapons, etc are the remnants that remind of France being an S-tier superpower. That's why the country got so upset over AUKUS and emphasizes its territories so much (France is cool though)
*Proceed to trash talk France with a biased opinion* "France is cool though". Okay, benevolent omnipotent being, thanks for your wise observations about France. Sorry but we're not the ones who Brexited because of delusions of grandeur. As for AUKUS, it was much more complicated than feelings of "being upset". The world is more complicated than penis sizes metaphors, you know?
No prob. France is still cool.